Q13 - Weingarten claims that keeping animals in zoos

by **mshinners** Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Weingarten is an animal rights activits. The author thinks owning pets cuts against W's argument against zoos, and must therefore be rejected.

Answer Anticipation:
Calling someone a hypocrite? That's ad hominem.

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The issue is W's stance towards owning pets, not whether he actually owns them.

(B) Wrong flaw. This argument goes between analogous situations, not from a specific to general case.

(C) There's no point where there's a misrepresentation. W claims something is unethical, and the author rejects that (abstractly, which would make it hard to misrepresent).

(D) Wrong flaw. If anything, putting animals in unnatural environs is sufficient to prove unethicality, according to W. The author doesn’t flip that around.

(E) Bingo. This is the hypocrisy flavor of ad hominem attacks.

Takeaway/Pattern: Know the flaws. Live the flaws (well, point them out in others; don't apply them yourself). Love the flaws. You can quickly find the correct answer here if you know which one you're looking for.

#officialexplanation